The Odd Lies of Paul Ryan

[Kaosium]

If I said that the original Star Wars movie was about a guy who meets his long lost twin sister and then totally wants to get with that would you consider that misleading? Ryan does something similar by being factually honest but intentionally leaving out facts so the listener will draw the wrong conclusion; that's still dishonest. It's not like that's even know in politics. This is politics, people lie - a lot.

You're assuming here the conclusion he 'wants you to draw' is wrong. That's either not the case (shouldn't he be allowed to disagree with the President and the Dems position?) or they're misrepresenting what he said. On the plant it actually would have been an entirely valid criticism that Obama 'broke a campaign promise' and the semantic pretense he didn't is rather pathetic. Note that breaking a campaign promise wouldn't make Obama a 'liar' either, that can happen for very good reasons that do not in the slightest impugn his integrity.

I still think that this automatic assumption that anyone who doesn't treat him as the golden boy is somehow just part of a partisan smear campaign is a bit sad. It's a bit like watching a Ron Paul supporter.

I'm sorry I'm saddening you but I am disinclined to let smear campaigns go unanswered just because it does. Note that is another reason they're often so successful: it makes some think that anyone who opposes it must in fact be fanatical or even delusional. I've been through this before! Try giving me the benefit of the doubt, I may just be right about this. Did you read that one link I provided, by the German dude?

If you don't know what a partisan smear campaign looks like in American politics, review and keep reading this thread and perhaps you will learn. They can be identified, tracked and sometimes traced to the sources. So can other campaigns of this type, like the one against Amanda Knox. How'd that turn out, did you happen to hear?

 

[Kaosium]

That will be tricky as long as you automatically dismiss anything you disagree with as a smear campaign.

No, I do not, I've gone through the specific contentions numerous times, I'll do so again if you wish. It's the best way to evaluate a source if you think on it: determine if what they are saying is true, and try to figure out if it's not just why that might be.

Being as I've already done that, the main interest for me now is just who's pushing it.

 

[A'isha]

Did you just compare Paul Ryan to Amanda Knox?

I think, when you reach this point, you ought to stop digging.

 

[elbe]

Yeah, I've looked at the facts in evidence. Ryan is wrong and he's either knowingly wrong (what I like to call lying) or has some sort of senility that makes him forget the things he's done. Considering I'm not the one who assumed a pretty common factchecking source was untrustworthy just because they said something you disagreed with I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to check their partisan blinders.

I want a competent GOP. I want opposition parties that work toward their goal and are willing to reach across the aisle to make things happen for the good of the country. Right now, however, the GOP is in full lockdown. They are killing bills with their own plans because it might make the democrats in power look good. These are not good people and Ryan appears to be one of them.
So before you get all defensive again remember that one whole night of the GOP convention was built around a lie; a lie that everyone can see but the right desperately wants to believe ('you didn't build that'). They lie. Everyone knows it. It's politics as usual.

 

[elbe]

Did you just compare Paul Ryan to Amanda Knox?

I think, when you reach this point, you ought to stop digging.

I'll be honest, I don't know squat about Amanda Knox (I've heard stories about that thread, though). Are there a lot of people starting from a conclusion and rationalizing everything else to fit that preconceived narrative?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'll be honest, I don't know squat about Amanda Knox (I've heard stories about that thread, though). Are there a lot of people starting from a conclusion and rationalizing everything else to fit that preconceived narrative?

My advice: Don't. Avoid at all costs. (This includes discussion, sadly. Both sides of that thread were horrible partisans.)

 

[Kaosium]

Yeah, I've looked at the facts in evidence. Ryan is wrong and he's either knowingly wrong (what I like to call lying) or has some sort of senility that makes him forget the things he's done.

What do you believe he is 'wrong' about? (outside the marathon time)

Considering I'm not the one who assumed a pretty common factchecking source was untrustworthy just because they said something you disagreed with I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to check their partisan blinders.

I determined the 'fact-checking' source (notably the Annenberg Public Policy one) was untrustworthy on this specific issue because the arguments they made were dishonest. I've detailed why either here or in the GOP convention thread and could do so again.

I want a competent GOP. I want opposition parties that work toward their goal and are willing to reach across the aisle to make things happen for the good of the country. Right now, however, the GOP is in full lockdown. They are killing bills with their own plans because it might make the democrats in power look good. These are not good people and Ryan appears to be one of them.

I agree with you about how it has worked sometimes, I don't like it either, but it's not specific to either a party or to individuals. It's actually part of the way the system was designed! Didja ever look into the number of bills vetoed by Truman after the GOP took Congress for the first time since the Great Depression in '46 and how he then went on the road against the 'do nothing Congress?' However Truman could argue, and did, that they weren't doing what he thought was good for the country and needed a Dem Congress back to do what he wanted.

However it cannot be said that Paul Ryan did not propose plans and just why they couldn't come to agreement cannot be laid on his shoulders as a (then) minority member of Congress, and if Obama refused to deal with a GOP majority and chose to take it to an election then it's not the GOP pulling that stunt in this case, is it?

So before you get all defensive again remember that one whole night of the GOP convention was built around a lie; a lie that everyone can see but the right desperately wants to believe ('you didn't build that'). They lie. Everyone knows it. It's politics as usual.

You misunderstand what they meant by that. This is an old philosophical argument regarding the relation between government and business. In a very basic sense it's just Keynes vs. Hayek. However I will give special marks for Obama's bluntness for him to go out saying that way to campaign contributors!

 

[Kaosium]

Did you just compare Paul Ryan to Amanda Knox?

I think, when you reach this point, you ought to stop digging.

What I meant is the technique is similar. It's quite a bit more common in politics, and I was surprised and saddened to see it employed against two innocents like that.

 

[elbe]

You misunderstand what they meant by that. This is an old philosophical argument regarding the relation between government and business. In a very basic sense it's just Keynes vs. Hayek. However I will give special marks for Obama's bluntness for him to go out saying that way to campaign contributors!

No. The GOP is attempting to paint Obama's statement as "you didn't build that business" when anyone looking at it within context would know he was talking about infrastructure - something Romney has also said.

You are... not very honest.

 

[Kaosium]

I'll be honest, I don't know squat about Amanda Knox (I've heard stories about that thread, though). Are there a lot of people starting from a conclusion and rationalizing everything else to fit that preconceived narrative?

Yes there were! You know what's even more hilarious? They thought the ones who figured out she was innocent were the ones doing that! It never quite dawned on them that's why some could argue the particulars of the prosecution's contentions and they had to rely on smear tactics and accusations of bias to 'discredit' others.

 

[Kaosium]

No. The GOP is attempting to paint Obama's statement as "you didn't build that business" when anyone looking at it within context would know he was talking about infrastructure - something Romney has also said.

You do not understand the argument, it's apparently too complex for some. Very simply: Obama was arguing that the government was necessary for the success of business and was illustrating it by listing infrastructure and other things that he thinks helped build that business. The opposing argument is it was taxes from business (and other tax-generating activities) that funded those projects and those things exist because of previous successful entrepreneurship and the like thus each person who builds a successful enterprise should not feel beholden to government spending either in the past or now.

Or do you think Obama is so stupid he didn't think his supporters realized taxes pay for the stuff he was listing?

You are... not very honest.

You're mistaken, but the accusation does not surprise me. I will not post what I think of you at this instant.

 

[Tricky]

You do not understand the argument, it's apparently too complex for some. Very simply: Obama was arguing that the government was necessary for the success of business and was illustrating it by listing infrastructure and other things that he thinks helped build that business. The opposing argument is it was taxes from business (and other tax-generating activities) that funded those projects and those things exist because of previous successful entrepreneurship and the like thus each person who builds a successful enterprise should not feel beholden to government spending either in the past or now.

This is a totally inane argument. Of course taxes come from citizens and businesses, but it is still the actions and the organizations of the government and its agencies that decide and build the infrastructure he is talking about. Heck, businesses get their money from the people and other businesses too. So what?

You sound like a guy yelling at a traffic cop, "You can't give me a ticket! I pay your salary!"

 

[xjx388]

Politicians lie about stuff to:
1)Make themselves sound more accomplished
2)Misrepresent the effects of their own positions
3)Misrepresent the effects of their opponents positions

Obama is a liar too! Factcheck.org says so!

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/
Obama reiterated his “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” refrain, despite the fact that at least a few million workers won’t keep their employer-sponsored plans, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The president also exaggerated the benefits of the law, such as the number of young adults who were able to join their parents’ plans, thanks to the law, and the number of individuals who will receive rebates issued by insurance companies that didn’t spend enough premium dollars on health care.

So to pound on Ryan for his "lies" is kind of hypocritical when both sides do it rampantly and repeatedly -and Obama is certainly no exception. Here's another example from our friends at factcheck.org:

The ad claims that Romney raised taxes on the middle class. It’s true that Romney imposed a number of fees, but none of them targeted middle-income persons. Also, Romney proposed cutting the state income tax three times — a measure that would have resulted in tax cuts for all taxpayers — but he was rebuffed every time by the state’s Democratic Legislature.

There's plenty more where that came from. So, it's perfectly fair to call out Ryan on his lies. Politicians should be honest. I wonder, though, why I don't hear anyone on this "skeptical" forum calling out Obama (and every other politician in the world) on his lies. Bias? Spin? Blinders on?

 

[BenBurch]

...

You sound like a guy yelling at a traffic cop, "You can't give me a ticket! I pay your salary!"

Zsa Zsa Gabor tried that, if I recall.

 

[Kaosium]

This is a totally inane argument. Of course taxes come from citizens and businesses, but it is still the actions and the organizations of the government and its agencies that decide and build the infrastructure he is talking about. Heck, businesses get their money from the people and other businesses too. So what?

Do you think businesses could manage that in a cooperative manner (or all by themselves) without a government entity?

Hint: they have.

Note I'm not saying that's best, nor do I think Romney was, and this is actually much more complicated, but do you understand the point now?

You sound like a guy yelling at a traffic cop, "You can't give me a ticket! I pay your salary!"

That's not a good illustration.

 

[marplots]

You're assuming here the conclusion he 'wants you to draw' is wrong. That's either not the case (shouldn't he be allowed to disagree with the President and the Dems position?) or they're misrepresenting what he said. On the plant it actually would have been an entirely valid criticism that Obama 'broke a campaign promise' and the semantic pretense he didn't is rather pathetic.

I quoted this part because I thought it particularly perceptive. I think we all have that bias -- the ability to "hear" supporting elements differently when we agree with the conclusion drawn. If I do not agree with the conclusion (Obama not keeping his promises) I will tend to shape what Obama said one way, a less strict way semantically. If I think Ryan's points were valid (about Obama not keeping his promises) I will hear what Ryan says in the same forgiving way.

I think what you said is perceptive because, in a sense, we hear the conclusion of the argument first and only then go back and paint the earlier stuff as truth or fiction.

So, for example, if I agree that Ryan is a young, vital, athletic sort, I wouldn't care what time he got in a marathon -- I'm impressed by his athleticism no matter what the time was. On the other hand, if I think he's just making stuff up to brag, I'd pick apart the details and see what I could find that supported this opposite view.

We end up arguing about different things at different times. In one situation, I am all about specific words and facts. In another, I'm busy forgiving "lies" as misstatements or mistakes and only listening to the larger tone.

A good politician will stay away from hard facts and concrete plans. Why? Because they know I'll hear, "Hope and Change" any damn way I please. Does it mean less poverty? Stopping a war? Lower taxes? Sure, it means whatever you need it to mean.

The whole RNC message boils down to, "Obama hasn't done what you expected and you ought to get someone else in there."

That's not a bad message, but Romney isn't all that inspiring as a replacement either.

 

[Ausmerican]

Regardless of all the arguing over semantics the end result is clear. Paul Ryan came out to introduce himself to America as it's next Vice President and, in the eyes of most news organizations and I would hazard a majority of people, said basically;
"Hi this is me, lie, lie, lie, lie, Romney 2012!"

 

[elbe]

You do not understand the argument, it's apparently too complex for some. Very simply: Obama was arguing that the government was necessary for the success of business and was illustrating it by listing infrastructure and other things that he thinks helped build that business. The opposing argument is it was taxes from business (and other tax-generating activities) that funded those projects and those things exist because of previous successful entrepreneurship and the like thus each person who builds a successful enterprise should not feel beholden to government spending either in the past or now.

You know up until now I haven't seen anyone - anyone - try to frame that whole "you didn't build it" soundbite like that. I know how that argument works but it's still bs, that's not what this is about. The people at the convention holding up signs that said "we DID build it!" weren't making some philosophical point about the government's role in society. The attack ads that paired the soundbite alongside the guy saying that he and his family did build his business weren't presenting it as a college level thesis on Hayek's work. Are you seriously trying to claim this? what's wrong with you?

Yeah, I'm done here. If you can't even pretend to be intellectually honest I don't see the point. You started with a simple premise, maybe he wasn't lying but was honestly wrong but then it quickly diverged into 'everyone who thinks he lied is part of a smear campaign' to the point of dismissing entire sources because they didn't agree with you. Yeah, I made a joke about the Fox opinion piece (the clue was when I called it the vanguard of the left), but you attacked the writer instead of addressing any points she may have had. You've lost any trustworthiness I might have had for you.


ETA: As for the theme of the OP: I'm not exactly inclined to believe Ryan is a congenital liar. I still think the marathon thing was just bragging, and I think the speech was targeted for a sympathetic audience to tell them what they wanted to head; Obama = bad. That's not enough, for me, to say that Ryan is regularly dishonest, at least beyond the average politician.

 

[Tricky]

Do you think businesses could manage that in a cooperative manner (or all by themselves) without a government entity?

Hint: they have.

LOL. You pick company towns as an example? In company towns, the company WAS the government, and it ruled over a group of wage slaves who had little choice but to work for that town government and buy from that town government. Odd that you choose a communistic system as a model for how things can operate without government infrastructure.

Plus, they still used the infrastructure of the larger government. They had railroads and other things that connected them to the larger country. They did not exist in isolation.

In other words, this is a very bad example you've chosen to defend your point.

Note I'm not saying that's best, nor do I think Romney was, and this is actually much more complicated, but do you understand the point now?

Yes, I undertstand the point, and I disagree with it.

 

[Kaosium]

Regardless of all the arguing over semantics the end result is clear. Paul Ryan came out to introduce himself to America as it's next Vice President and, in the eyes of most news organizations and I would hazard a majority of people, said basically;
"Hi this is me, lie, lie, lie, lie, Romney 2012!"

What's interesting is why they 'heard' that when he didn't lie. It was because people lied about what he said and what he meant and some people believed it. It's called a 'smear.'